2019 Case Law Update By Kumar S. Raja, Esq.

There are numerous cases currently in the courts that will likely impact how HOAs conduct their business. The Quorum Committee will continue to report on these cases as they are completed. In the meantime, the following two 2019 cases provide some interesting findings. Please rely on your association’s counsel any time you are presented with issues that are ambiguous or that are not clearly defined by current law or your governing documents.

2019 Case Law Update

By Kumar S. Raja, Esq.

In Harbour Island Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. Alexander (2019), the Court of Appeals rendered an unpublished opinion which could provide some clarity regarding a tenant’s right to attend board meetings and a ban on noxious activities within the community. In general, unpublished opinions do not set precedent; under California law, they must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action (California Rules of Court Rule 8.1115). The Association (“HOA”) sought a restraining order against two tenants and their landlord to abate the tenants’ noxious behavior. The HOA relied on the CC&R provision which stated that residents cannot disturb the neighborhood or occupants of a neighboring property or create a nuisance.

Neighboring residents made several complaints to the HOA about the tenants’ excessive and purposeful noise: the tenants consistently stomped on their floors and slammed their doors. In addition to the noise complaints, tenants permitted their dog to urinate in the Common Area, despite the posted “No Dogs” signs. Lastly, the tenants engaged in aggressive behavior against the Board of Directors in an apparent attempt to intimidate Board Members.

The trial court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the tenants and their landlord to install throw rugs throughout the unit and a sound-muffling device on the doors; to cease

"The appellate court interpreted the view protection provision of the CC&Rs to mean that all Homeowners were prohibited from building new structures that detracted from the views of other Homeowners, and not that the Homeowners were prohibited from altering existing structures. The term “structure” was interpreted to mean outbuildings, not primary residences."

photographing Board Members; and to prevent their dog from urinating on the Common Area. The trial court ruled in favor of the HOA because the tenants’ noxious behavior unfairly oppressed the rest of the community, while the ordered corrective measures were minimally oppressive to the tenants. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. The Court broadly interpreted that provision to encompass the exclusion of dogs from the Common Area for health and safety reasons, and held that the nuisance provision bans acoustic nuisances that interfere with a neighbor’s right to quiet enjoyment.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the tenants that their due process rights had been violated since they were not permitted to challenge the violation notices at hearings. The Court held that only Owners with vested property rights are Members of the HOA. As such, only Members may participate in HOA meetings. The Harbour Island case, albeit unpublished, highlights the broad reach of nuisance provisions in CC&Rs and serves as a reminder that Owners, not tenants, have the right to attend and participate in HOA meetings. In Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, the California Court of Appeal considered a view protection dispute between neighbors. The Plaintiff Homeowners sued Defendant Homeowners and alleged that Defendants’ remodel activities violated several provisions of the HOA’s CC&Rs.

Among other provisions, Plaintiffs relied upon the CC&R restriction which restricted “structures” from being erected that could potentially obstruct the view from another lot.

The trial court agreed that the Defendant violated the CC&Rs and ordered the Defendants to remove many of their architectural improvements, which detracted from the Plaintiffs’ view. The trial court ordered that the Defendants pay the Plaintiffs in the amount of $39,000.00 as interim damages for their view loss. The appellate court disagreed and overruled a substantial portion of the trial court’s judgment.

The appellate court interpreted the view protection provision of the CC&Rs to mean that all Homeowners were prohibited from building new structures that detracted from the views of other Homeowners, and not that the Homeowners were prohibited from altering existing structures. The term “structure” was interpreted to mean outbuildings, not primary residences.

As a result, the Defendants were permitted to maintain their home as remodeled with the exception of some hedges that needed to be trimmed.

This case demonstrates how different interpretations of the same provisions of the CC&Rs can vary greatly and produce drastically different results. For this reason, HOAs should consult with their legal counsel when interpreting and enforcing ambiguous CC&R restrictions.

Kumar S. Raja, Esq. is a senior litigator with the Tinnelly Law Group. Mr. Raja handles a wide variety of the firm’s litigation and general counsel matters. With offices throughout the state of California, the Tinnelly Law Group has exclusively represented community associations for the last thirty (30) years. You can reach Kumar at (949) 484-4223 or kumar@tinnellylaw.com.